Monday, June 22, 2015

Is the time ripe for a ‘Digital Magna Carta”? Thoughts after the BBC play...

Even those who have railed against the historical
effectiveness of the Magna Carta at the time of its signing must
concede that it introduced into society a principle which holds true and
powerful till today. That ‘no free man shall be seized or imprisoned...except
by the lawful judgment of his equals or by the law of the land,’ has made this document
an ‘emblem
ofthe long struggle of
people everywhere against the excesses of an arbitrary ruler’
in the 800 years of its existence. The Magna Carta, incidentally, was signed
under duress. In 1215, England’s King John had to sign a peace treaty with
rebellious barons who had marched against him, a situation made dire by the
threat of French invasion from across the sea.

Whatever be its historical truth, its
myth precedes it. Its power lies in the idea that today, hundreds of years
later, it can inspire a new ‘Magna Carta’ – a document for the digital age,
crafting a new social contract between the State and its citizens – and of
course, the big internet companies.

To celebrate its anniversary, the BBC broadcast a
radio play, set in an imagined future where a
crippling cyber attack on the world’s internet network forces the G20 and the
I-5 (the most internet companies in the world) to negotiate a digital Magna
Carta with a small band of engineers who can save the network. There are three
main clauses to this Bill of Rights: an end to the weaponization of the
internet; a universal charter to govern it: one network, one law; and
guaranteed rights of access to all users.

Twenty-five years since the internet, and there can be no
doubt that at least 3 billion of the world’s 7 billion population have seen
their lives changed drastically because of connectivity. Agenda setting for
shaping this digital society is at a feverish pitch, as processes, conferences,
stakeholders and consensus-documents dot the line of the global internet
governance system. The Digital Bill of Rights flagged in the BBC play are not
simple concepts. Weaponization of space by both state and non-state actors is
rampant, with parallel processes running out of the UN, Shanghai Cooperation
Organization and the ‘London Process’ to develop norms of State Behaviour in
Cyberspace. Ultimately, these documents might serve to guide responsible
behavior, but a complete – formal -- ban on weaponization of cyberspace seems
unlikely. Consider that the closest the world has come to genuinely ridding itself
of nuclear weapons is when Superman collected all nukes from around the world
and threw them into the Sun in a movie in 1987!

Similarly, the idea that the internet could be governed by
one broad law – and clearly an ideal law that would protect freedoms, privacy
and citizens from unnecessary surveillance -- is also unlikely in the near
future. Today, the internet is governed by the individual laws of nations, with
serious questions being asked about which laws apply in a transnational
incident, often criminal in nature, when different parties are scattered in
different geographies, made further complicated by the fluid nature of data in cyberspace.
Given that commerce fuels much of the growth of the internet, a move to
harmonize laws across like-minded countries seems a plausible way forward,
however, even business cannot account for cultural and economic peculiarities
of different regions.

The final demand set forth in the play is that users be
guaranteed rights of access. What might sound reasonable given that buzzwords
like ‘right to internet’, ‘public utility’ and ‘digital citizenship’ dot the
media, however, the ideas might not be as universal as one might imagine. After
all, imbibed in the idea of guaranteed access is that free expression is a
fundamental right; one not particularly backed by authoritarian countries. Even
democratic countries cite law and order problems as a reason to ‘switch off’
access to the internet. In fact, a ‘right’ could be said to be borne out an
understanding of what the internet means to society. Does this right to
broadband pre-suppose that the internet is key to enjoy the fundamental right
to free expression? Or, is it a commercial network, one of many avenues of
expression, that should reach citizen-consumers through the market?

These aren’t the only clauses that might make to a ‘Digital
Magna Carta’ were it to be drafted today. A project in the UK called ‘My Digital Rights’ also threw
open this question to the public. Around 3000 people aged 10-18 submitted
around 5000 clauses. The top clause is “The Web we want will not
let companies pay to control it, and not let governments restrict our right to
information,” while the 10th clause is “the Web we want will not
sell our personal information and preferences for money, and will make it
clearer if the company/Website intends to do so.” These might change as the
project is still open.

But one thing is clear. The ‘Web’ –
with all its fibre optic cables, satellites, wi-fi zones, laptops, mobile
phones and other infrastructure has been endowed with a certain positive quality
to be protected. The system – this network of networks – is measured by average
users more by its potential to be a force for good than any downside. To achieve
this, netizens want freedom from surveillance from governments who are tasked
from protect them, and freedom from data collection by internet companies whose
services they use, often freely. This is because their personal data – often
called the ‘new oil’ indicating its value in today’s world – is the new
high-value currency in the digital world. The UN Human Rights Council has taken
up this subject, and special reports on the Right to Privacy as well on
encryption and anonymity have been released to ensure users are afforded the
protections they need to operate in this ecosystem.And along with this, their own
responsibilities (or corresponding duties
to their rights) is of crucial
importance too. After all, hacking, stealing, harassing, bullying, and other
anti-social, often criminal activities, also emanate from actors other than
governments and business.

Is the time ripe for a ‘Digital Magna
Carta’ is as compelling a question as any. In the play, ‘The Great Charter’, a massive
cyber attack forced the hand of the world leaders to sign a document at the
insistence of a small group, much like King John was forced to sign the Magna
Carta by his barons. Today, global internet governance is on a different
trajectory of sorts: consensus based documents crafted by multiple stakeholders
is the order of the day. It is long process, fraught with challenges, nuances,
compromises and legalities, and is still missing 4 billion offline voices. But
certainly a process made inclusive by access to information,
remote-participation, social media engagement and the free flow of ideas.